Court awards $500,000 in punitive damages award in brutal inmate beating

The jury awarded the state prisoner $50,000 in compensatory damages for his beating at the hands of three Fishkill Correctional Facility guards. The jury also awarded punitive damages awards in the amount of $950,000, divided among the three defendants. The district court last week finds punitive damages are warranted but remits the award to $500,000, throwing in some choice words about the officers and the state's willingness to cover the punitive damages for this unprovoked act of violence.

The case is Magalios v. Peralta, SDNY No. 19-CV-6188, 2022 WL 407403, decided on February 10. After an officer yelled at plaintiff for greeting his wife with a hug and kiss during visitation (the rules allow for such an embrace), the three guards attacked him after removing any witnesses from the room and "brutally kick[ing] and punch[ing]" him for 30 to 60 seconds while a guard held plaintiff down. Plaintiff had bruise marks all over his body, "including a mark in the shape of a boot print." We have a formula for assessing punitive damages awards, including whether the ratio between compensatories and punitives is too high, whether the amount is consistent with any criminal penalties, and awards in similar cases. This formula upholds the punitive damages awards in this case, but there are some notable parts of the district court's ruling.

First, a $1 million civil rights verdict is quite uncommon, particularly when most of the money is through punitive damages. $950,000 in punitives creates an unhealthy ratio with the $50,000 compensatory damages, potentially threatening the award and commanding a remittitur or new trial. At least that's what the state says. But Judge Seibel says the real way to assess the ratio is to look at the compensatory damages in comparison to the individual punitive damages awards. So instead of $50,000:$950,000, it's $50,000:$350,000, and the same formula for the $250,000 punitive damages awards against the other officers. Other district courts have done it this way. This framework takes into account how plaintiff's compensatory damages are joint and several among the three defendants, and punitives punish a particular defendant. From this angle, the proper ratio is 7:1, 5:1 and 5:1, within due process standards as defined by the Supreme Court. It looks like the Second Circuit has yet to address this issue. Under this formula, the $950,000 is still too high, so Judge Seibel reduces the overall punitives to $500,000.

Second, this decision is notable for the district court's discomfort with the officers' behavior and the litigation strategy pursued by the Attorney General. I rarely see language like this in court rulings. Judge Seibel "find[s] it disturbing that Defendants' counsel would argue 'there is no evidence in the record that Defendants acted maliciously or wantonly to support a punitive damages award'" or that the actions were not sufficiently reprehensible to warrant a high punitive damages award. The judge writes that "Counsel's obligation to advocate for their clients does not require them to bury their heads in the sand or to risk their own credibility." The court also notes the officers lied on the witness stand and tried to cover up their misdeeds in creating false records. They also gave "laughable" testimony at trial. All of this factors into the punitive damages analysis. 

Finally, Judge Seibel is wondering why the state might cover the punitive damages award rather than make the officers pay it themselves, openly encouraging state policymakers to adopt the latter approach as a means to let other officers know that beatings like this will not be tolerated and will personally cost them. If the state covers the damages, the plaintiff will get his money. If the officers have to pay these damages, they will probably go bankrupt or lay out the money under some payment plan. We always assume that the employer covers all damages, including punitives, but this is the second time in two years that I have seen a federal judge from the White Plains courthouse question such indemnification (the first time involved a similar case that I worked on, Anderson v. Osborne, which Judge Seibel cites in support of the damages award). The district court closes out with this statement:

The jury's verdict here sent a strong message about what the community thinks about the use of excessive force by correction officers against the inmates in their care. The members of the jury were plainly disgusted by Defendants’ conduct, and they would likely be equally disgusted if they learned that Defendants were to suffer no professional or financial repercussions from their actions and that the taxpayers of New York State were instead going to satisfy Plaintiff's judgment. Further, I cannot think of a more effective tool for deterring future misconduct than a correction officer, who has been found to have engaged in wanton or malicious violation of constitutional rights, having his wages garnished or losing his savings or real property.